Teleforum

In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right to privacy of association and belief. Almost 60 years later, while California's Attorney General began requiring charities to provide their office with a federal form listing major donors. That document -- Schedule B to IRS Form 990 -- is provided directly to the IRS, and its privacy is guaranteed by federal law. The California Attorney General asserted that her office would also protect donors' privacy, and that the information was necessary to pursue law enforcement duties. The American for Prosperity Foundation and others assert the evidence at trial indicated that donor information was publicly available, and that California authorities seldom used it for the reasons stated. The Supreme Court has been asked to review the Attorney General's policy, and has called for the views of the Solicitor General in what could prove a seminal case concerning associational privacy. Featuring:Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO,

The Supreme Court released the decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund on April 23, 2020. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated, and the case remanded. Justice Breyer's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Alito. Justice Alito also filed a dissent.Featuring: Glenn Roper, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Electronic Sign In: Click Here (Sign-in now!) Written Materials: Click HereCertificate of Attendance: Click Here (Fill in the form with the two unique codes!) The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity for attorneys in New York, California, Minnesota, and Illinois to fulfill the one-hour “Diversity and Elimination of Bias” CLE requirement in those states.On September 30 a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling rejecting discrimination claims in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170309 (D. Mass.), a case that many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially redefine affirmative action law. In the case, Asian-American students allege that Harvard’s racial preferences for other minority groups discriminate against them in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The students introduced evidence that Asian enrollment at Harvard is less than half what it would be if admission was based

Join us as our experts give an update on the intersection of patent and antitrust issues including, but not limited to, recent developments in standard essential patents, the pros and cons of patent counting, patent pools and whether current remedies for patent infringement suffice.Featuring:-- Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust, United States Department of Justice-- Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce, Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Gen. Mike Flynn, at one time the President's National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FBI agent who interviewed him shortly after the President took office. The charge was brought by the Office of Special Counsel and Robert Mueller. Recently, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that the materiality of Flynn's statements was in doubt, and that the case being developed fell short of the standards the Justice Department historically follows in dealing with defendants and potential defendants. US District Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is handling the case, has said he will hold a hearing on whether to grant the motion to dismiss, and -- since both parties support the motion -- has appointed an amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, to present the case against granting it.Were the charges against Flynn justified? Was Flynn dealt with fairly and according to law as the case proceeded? Is the Department correct in moving to dismiss notwithsta

The revolutionary "Brexit" vote heard round the world happened almost four years ago, and it will likely take even longer before the full global ramifications are realized on an international level. One of the key aspects to these ramifications has been the concept of a new trade deal between the United States and the United Kingdom. Just recently, trade negotiations have begun in full between the long-time allies, and many are hoping that a new trade deal could greatly aid the economies of both countries, especially with the economic fallout of COVID-19 still unclear. Joining us for a discussion on this topic, we welcome former U.S. Senator Phill Gramm. Featuring, -- The Hon. William Phillip Gramm, Former United States Senator for the state of Texas -- Matthew Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute-- Moderator: Wayne Abernathy, Chair of the Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and Former Executive Vice-President for the American Bankers As

Numerous businesses around the country have been shuttered by state government shutdown orders adopted to try to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Some have filed lawsuits claiming that such forced closures are takings requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the other side, state governments contend that no compensation is due, because the shutdowns are exercises of state police power to protect public health broadly. This teleforum will consider the extent to which takings claims against coronavirus shutdown orders have any validity.Featuring: Prof. F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Instructor of Accounting, University of Central Florida College of BusinessProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolModerator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, held that owners of polluted land within designated Superfund sites are “potentially responsible parties” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Dozens of Montana landowners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance over its dumping of tons of heavy metals, arsenic, and lead on their properties—pollution which led EPA to designate a 300 square mile area as a Superfund site. In addition to compensation, the landowners sought remediation damages to pay for a cleanup beyond that previously ordered by EPA. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the landowners’ case cannot proceed until they first obtain EPA approval for their cleanup plan. That narrow holding sidestepped the thornier issue, whether CERCLA preempts the landowners’ state common law claims. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College. In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, Case No. 19-518, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector. In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election. Featuring:Prof. Derek Muller, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive e

Please join Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk for a discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NY State & Rifle Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. The presenters will cover the contents of the decision, its import, and the future of Second Amendment litigation at the Supreme Court.Featuring: David Thompson, Cooper & Kirk Amy Swearer, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Governments that seek to acquire nuclear weapons, such as Iran and North Korea, are sometimes serious violators of the rights of their citizens. Is it appropriate for the United States and other democratic nations to negotiate agreements with these governments to prevent or roll back their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction without also addressing internment camps, severe persecution of political and religious dissidents, and other conduct?Our speakers will be Roya Hakakian, who has written extensively about Iran and who co-founded the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center at Yale; Ben Rogers, who serves as East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide and who is a founder of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea; and Professor David Koplow of Georgetown University, an expert on national security law and policy who has served in senior USG arms control positions, most recently in the Defense Department.Featuring: -- Roya Hakakian, Author and Founding Me

Three cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the President’s tax records. In Trump v. Vance, a local grand jury has subpoenaed these tax documents as well. There are several issues at play in determining if these subpoenas are valid. Starting with the Congressional subpoenas, the President claims that these subpoenas are for information protected under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosure of a customer's financial records to "any Government authority" without certain procedures the committees concede they did not follow; but the committees claim that they are not a “Government authority” under the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the President claims the Internal Revenue Code, which allows disclosure but only with procedural requirements the committees admit that they have not done. But the c

Tribal jurisdiction is again before the Supreme Court. Following November 2018 arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts first requested additional briefing and then announced new arguments would occur in Sharp v. Murphy. Instead, the Court granted certiorari in McGirt v. Oklahoma, and Justice Gorsuch, who had recused himself from the earlier case, will participate. Jimcy McGirt sought post-conviction relief of his rape, molestation, and sodomy convictions, citing Murphy, and arguing his crimes occurred in Indian Country and thus were subject to the Indian Major Crimes Act. If that law applies, Mr. McGirt’s crimes should have been prosecuted in federal court, rather than state court. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his request for relief. Because tribal jurisdiction related to criminal, civil, and regulatory matters generally flow together under Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government 522 U.S. 520 (1998), some legal analysts view this case as representative of a much larger matter th

In Mozilla v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order in which the current Commission rejected the Obama Administration’s 'net neutrality' efforts to impose legacy common carrier regulation on the Internet and returned broadband Internet access service to a “light touch” regulatory regime under Title I of the Communications Act. Mozilla was not a complete victory for the Commission, however. Not only did the D.C. Circuit reverse the FCC’s broad efforts to preempt categorically state efforts to regulate the Internet, but the court remanded several issues to the Commission for further explanation, including how reclassification affects access to pole attachments, how reclassification affects the ability to include broadband in the FCC’s Lifeline program, and how reclassification affects public safety. Last March, the Commission issued a public notice to refresh the record in this case, and the comment period is on-going. Please join our pane

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, the Supreme Court, in 2012, unanimously held that, under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.” Accordingly, the Court recognized that there is a “ministerial exception” that precludes application of employment-discrimination laws to claims concerning the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. But who qualifies as a minister? The Hosanna-Tabor Court refused “to adopt a rigid formula,” but found that the employee at issue in that case was a minister in light of several “considerations”—the formal title given to the employee by the church, the substance reflected in that title, the employee’s own use of that title, and the important religious functions the employee performed.Eight years later, the question of “who’s a ministe

Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as a political punishment against the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse the Governor re-election. On appeal, Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States was the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court. In an unanimous decision written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that Kelly and Baroni’s acts did not amount to defrauding the government, and reversed their convictions. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will offer his thoughts on the implications of the ruling. Featuring:Mr. Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email ann

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the

The oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue is whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important First Amendment case, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., Case No. 19-177, regarding the scope of the government’s funding power to limit private speech. This is the second time this case has been argued in the Court. Like the prior appeal, this case addresses whether the government has the power to compel speech from grant recipients who received government funds to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. This teleforum will provide an overview of the Court’s prior opinion, the First Amendment impact of this case, and several key points that the Court will likely address in its opinion.Featuring: Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch InstituteKrystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum cal

COVID-19 has disrupted the world like few other events in recent history. The disruptions are sure to lead to disagreements and serious legal disputes. As matters are sorted out in courts across the country, how should and how will science and expert testimony be used? How will the 'battle of experts' be engaged in the courts? Will standards of expertise change in either direction, either in sympathy for people who have suffered, or in anticipation of opportunistic plaintiffs seeking a payout?Featuring:-- Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-- Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Taxpayers Protection Alliance